The Columbus Institute of Contemporary Journalism (CICJ) has operated Freepress.org since 2000 and ColumbusFreepress.com was started initially as a separate project to highlight the print newspaper and local content.
ColumbusFreepress.com has been operating as a project of the CICJ for many years and so the sites are now being merged so all content on ColumbusFreepress.com now lives on Freepress.org
The Columbus Freepress is a non-profit funded by donations we need your support to help keep local journalism that isn't afraid to speak truth to power alive.
SAN FRANCISCO -- The conventional wisdom in Washington is that it's
pointless or reckless for Americans to speak with Iraqi officials. But
some on Capitol Hill are beginning to think otherwise.
Last month, for the first time since George W. Bush became
president, members of Congress -- four Democrats -- visited Baghdad.
Hopefully, more will be making the journey later this fall.
Rep. Nick Rahall, a 13-term congressman from West Virginia, started
the trend in mid-September when he joined former Sen. James Abourezk of
South Dakota to lead a small delegation of Americans to Baghdad. As a
member of that group, I was impressed with the candor of the discussions
during several hours of meetings with high-level Iraqi government
ministers.
The White House was initially low-key about our trip. But when
three more congressmen announced they were heading off to visit Iraq
last week, the White House press secretary swung into action. Eager to
throw cold water, Ari Fleischer claimed that Mr. Rahall's visit "did not
turn out to be as he hoped it would because of the rough treatment he
got from the Iraqis, their refusal to listen to him, to meet with him,
to talk with him."
Actually, during face-to-face discussions with "the Iraqis" in
Baghdad, there was plenty of listening, meeting and talking. As Mr.
Rahall noted in an interview in The Hill Sept. 25, he repeatedly urged
Iraqi officials "to accept unconditional and unfettered access to U.N.
weapons inspectors."
And, what's more, Mr. Rahall said, "they did not reject my
suggestions. Tariq Aziz, the deputy prime minister with whom I met for
over two hours, said, 'We will give it careful consideration, we will
consult with our friends and allies, and I will consult with our
leadership.'"
Some prominent Republicans are now anxious to dampen prospects for
future U.S.-Iraq dialogues involving members of Congress. On Sunday,
when Democratic delegation members Rep. Jim McDermott of Washington and
Rep. David Bonior of Michigan appeared on ABC's This Week from Baghdad,
a senator on the program went after Mr. McDermott with rhetorical guns
blazing.
"Basically, he's taking Saddam Hussein's line," said Sen. Don
Nickles of Oklahoma, the GOP's assistant leader in the Senate. Mr.
Nickles added that Mr. McDermott and Mr. Bonior "sound somewhat like
spokespersons for the Iraqi government."
Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott of Mississippi called Mr.
McDermott "irresponsible" and proclaimed: "He needs to come home and
keep his mouth shut."
But Mr. McDermott's retort was on target Monday during a CNN
interview from Baghdad: "What I would suggest [Mr. Lott] do is get on a
Royal Jordanian airplane and fly over here and take a look. He is
talking from absolute ignorance of what's going on, on the ground. And I
think he ought to be a little more careful about what he says in a
country where we value free speech."
The current smears and denunciations from Republican leaders
indicate how threatening it can be when members of Congress won't defer
to the White House on matters of international discourse.
Generally, lawmakers excel at functioning as rubber stamps or
feeble dissenters when a president puts war at the top of the national
agenda. But senators and representatives should move beyond their
customary roles in order to breathe life into democratic processes and
hold open the possibility of peace.
While President Bush continues to insist that his administration
has nothing to discuss with the Iraqi regime, dialogue could prove to be
crucial.
Edward L. Peck, a former U.S. chief of mission to Iraq, recently
pointed out: "Our government is constantly saying that there must be
discussions between parties in disagreement, to avoid or at least reduce
the risk of war: India and Pakistan, North and South Korea, the Israelis
and the Palestinians, the Protestants and the Catholics in Northern
Ireland. So why don't we talk to Iraq?"
As it happened, two days after our delegation met with Mr. Aziz and
Iraqi National Assembly Speaker Sadoun Hammadi on Sept. 14, the United
Nations announced that Iraq had agreed to allow unrestricted access for
U.N. weapons inspectors. That was a highly positive step that could lead
to full inspections and effective disarmament in Iraq.
"It seems to me that if we are going to deal with this in a real
and honest way, we have got to create dialogue," Mr. Bonior said during
his visit to Baghdad. Unless war is their goal, elected officials in Washington should find ways to conduct more dialogue with Iraq in the
very near future.
________________________________
Norman Solomon is executive director of the Institute for Public> Accuracy, which sponsored the U.S. delegation visit to Baghdad in
mid-September.